I agree, I agree, I agree. CONSISTENCY. And having a long-term beloved character due to an individual actor pulling it off. Isn't individual achievement what we are all about?

You can add the cast of Firefly - especially Nathan Filian -- so that list.

Thanks Herb. However, I don't think that placing it in the NEAR future would alter the story line. In fact, I think that that is what the original novel did in the first place. The irony is that because of all the insanity and Peter-Keating/James Taggart nonsense going on out there, we as a culture and population have not advanced all that much since Miss Rand's novel was published. Computers and robotics are the only main advances that depart from the "world" is Atlas Shrugged. Here it is 60+ years later and we are still using fossil fuel combustion. Space travel in volume never happened. And the medical industry still hasn't cured even cancer.

So placing the story in the near future counting from 2015 will not be all that much of a stretch.

So I probably also do not agree with Plusaf's comment (thank you): "Place it in the future and the entire tone of AS would have to be dramatically changed, and that brings its own hazards and challenges, too."

Remember, it's the NEAR future, not 100 years from now. We still have no equivalent of Reardon Metal even. (Too much mediocrity, I guess...) Plus of course no one has invented John Galt's energy generator. I follow Physics, and they're not even close. (sigh)

So I don't think keeping the story in the "near future" would be a problem. But I do think that placing it in the 1950s would make it a "period piece", which for today's youth is sooooooooo boring. If you want to reach the current and future generations, you can't go back.

BTW, I am also ecstatic about ASTMS. And I'd live to ask John Williams if we could buy his soundtrack cut to the opening of "The Towering Inferno", to use as the opening of each ASTMS's episode. (I used to blast that in my car while going down the West Side Highway in NYC early in the morning while thinking of myself as a possible Hank Reardon of the Software Industry in New York.) If you've ever heard that cut, you'll know what I mean.

Thank you!

To establish the concept of the need for Galt's Gulch, you can have some discussions between Francisco, Dagny and Eddie, when they are children, and Francisco discussing the economic history of the US, going over the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial culture from the Revolution to the current day. They can, as children, discuss the creeping statism that has been tainting this country's legacy and, as children, having no solution. Then, when Francisco meets John and Ragnar at the Patrick Henry U., they become fast friends and later John comes up with the solution after quitting Starnes Motors. It might also be a good idea to create some background for John and Ragnar, so their friendship in college makes sense. You can do the same with the other main characters. Finally, it would be a good idea to show how James and his cronies came to their ideas. With a really serious TV series, we can flash back to any year or age that we want, and flash forward to "the future." If this series is going to have the impact that we're all talking about, then a host of issues must be discussed, and they start long before the 50s, and that will give us the flexibility to have the story start "yesterday" and continue into "the future," with appropriate flashbacks.

My sister says the same thing as she is an actress herself -- but her view is from the other side -- "good luck trying to get hired by liberal hollywood execs", etc.

She played Karen Andre in a local southern California production of Night of Jan 16th, and even in this liberal environment, managed to get rave reviews.

Her problem is the reverse. So maybe there are more like her out there. It's a big country. All those wannabees who cannot get hired by liberal Hollywood, may flock to ASTMS.

Just because Ayn composed her novel in the 50s the message remains timeless. Keep the day after tomorrow!

Its about nuclear apocalypse, but if you substitute destruction of the US dollar, its right on. I think it went on for only two seasons because people didnt want to think about life after a catastrophic event. Too bad, because its going to happen here (currency destruction), and the more we are prepared to recover from it, the better.

In my mind there is no question that it should be set in the 50's. People could then see that what was going on then is now coming to fruition. Much more powerful.

Sliders did it pretty well, but never slid into the AS universe. Probably would have blamed the producers (not the show's producers ;^) for any perceived injustice if they had.

Yes, if there's an alternate universe in which Texas retains its independence, there can easily be one in which airline development is crippled by FAA regulations or TSA searches keeping trains the dominant form of long-distance travel.

Good luck finding enough good conservative actors/actresses to fill the cast. I don't think too many liberal ones will want to star in a series that makes them all look bad. LMAO

Like your thinking Mikey with "the day after tomorrow" but rather than start the series 2008-2009, just have flashbacks to all of the things that helped destroy the country.

I vote the day after tomorrow.
I think that should appeal more to young people.
That is the most important audience to target with Rand's philosophy.

day-after-tomorrow would be immensely challenging,
but would have the greatest impact. . . Dagny tweets
her rejection of the govt mandate. . . .

I write/edit science friction and volunteer my help. -- j

WOW...This is fantastic news. I just hope it lasts for a number of seasons. I go for "the day after tomorrow", which is almost now! Wait is is now, damn

Both options have their advantages but I think using Ayn Rand's admonition to look to the "day after tomorrow" should guide the decision. Besides, current affairs would seem to provide ample material to work with that fits beautifully with the message she so passionately espoused.

Thanks for the suggestion on JERICHO. I've been considering watching that show for a while. Now I will! As far as people understanding Venezuela or Russia, most don't observe or understand it. Something closer to home might get there attention; one may hope...

I thought Graham Beckel far too old for the pardt Wyatt is a contemporary of Galt. I agree with the rest of your choices.

You'll never read the end of this thread. :-) People will be adding to it well into next year...

Yes, but not particularly successfully because of the way the films chopped the story up and homogenized it, and introduced cast changes.

Ala "Sky Captain". A perfect example of the genre.

SSI -> EPA - I like it!

Maybe if its done well, the money could be raised crowdfunding style instead of through movie studios.

The founding fathers were an interesting group of people. Very intelligent, but not really into the philosophical basis of a country. As a result, there were a lot of inconsistencies in their thinking processes- basically the belief in "their god", but not the "kings god", or the "mormon god" for that matter. Freedom for all, EXCEPT the Indians and the settlers from Mexico and England. Some of their "values" were great from a practical standpoint, but the flaws came back to bite us all in the butt after 200 years. I dont think the decline can be stopped until the economy collapses like in Venezuela and people realize why it happened. Only THEN can it be rebuilt with a new group of founding fathers as in AS.

People can see where our country is going I think at this point. There is Venezuela and Russia if you want to see into the future. What we dont know is how it can be repaired once our society collapses. JERICHO on Netflix was the closest thing to a discussion of that- you might like to check it out if you havent already.